101. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #191670 by advocatus_diaboli on June 11, 2008 at 12:30 pm

"Where did I say anarchy "can't work"? In fact I didn't say it, anywhere, you like so many on this site simply fabricate things to suit your dogma. What I did say was "Show me where it did work". "

My apologies.


"Now if we can get back to the facts, thank you for mentioning this specific example, I will be sure to read up on it, as I am intrigued by anarchy. But the criticisms you make of the free market, wouldn't these apply to anarchy as well?"

To anarcho-capitalism or individualist anarchism of the sort espoused by the Friedman clan, indeed it would. The single greatest shortcoming of these systems is that they essentially replace government with currency which is the key fault of libertarianism in general. By removing power and keeping a system which exists for little more than power you create an open invitation for a class system to once again rise.

"And doesn't anarchy concur that government is an illegitimate usurping of power? "

Indeed we do. But as an anarcho-communist I see little difference between coporate usurping of power and government usurping of power. And the moment an individual or small group of individuals controls a means of production, especially of a necessary good, then you have someone exercising power over others. Capitalism is a slave system in most, if not all, ways.

"Do anarchists consider it coercive in all cases?"

Indeed, the moment a ruler is in position it becomes coercive. But a key point to not is that no leaders does not mean no order. Certain actions would still be frowned upon and punished. But what from what I can see your own politico-economical system is much the same in that regard. The real issue in terms of coercion is avoiding both tyranny of government and tyranny of majority.

"And do you subscribe to the Chomskian notion of anarchy on the Kibbutzim?"

I'm Chomskian in that I am a Libertarian Socialist (of which anarcho-communism is a subset). I support communes and similar social systems but not Kibbutzim per se(I am anti-zionist, but otherwise the Kibbutzim have a good many things right).

The main issue is that you cannot have freedom from tyrrany when you have set up systems to allow it of which capitalism is a heavy part in Western society. I'd not be as opposed where the money a communal issue taking care of the groups needs(physically, mentally, and artistically, it is important to note people need more than just food and shelter) and then wants. There is no reason a person should be disallowed to own their own property such as books, movies, and games. But there is every reason a single person should not own the means of production of these things.

I hope that clarifies a bit and sorry I snapped, its been a trying day and I am sure you have yours as well.

An interesting aside. I mentioned the Friedman's earlier. I'm sure you're familiar with Milton Friedman. His grandson Patri recently got his hands on a large chunk of dough to help fund an government experiment of sorts with seasteading. I believe you may find some interest in reading up on it.

102. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #191645 by advocatus_diaboli on June 11, 2008 at 11:46 am

That's an easy one. One answer can handle both your questions. Anarchist Catalonia.

I see you can peddle the myth of "it can't work" with no real knowledge and snide attempts to insult. Does this mean you're evolving into a parrot that repeats whatever bilge it has been taught to repeat as it is convenient?

103. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #191637 by advocatus_diaboli on June 11, 2008 at 11:14 am

"Wage labour, correct. What is the point, what is the matter with earning money for your work."

Kropotkin pointed out nicely in his writings that there is no true gauge of what "your work" constitutes. To begin with all progress is built upon the progress of others. Instead of just buying a machine, the logic you provide us with indicates we should tithe all proceeds to the company that manufactured the machine, the designer of the machine, the teachers he learned from, the modelers whom the teachers taught by, et cetera. So it is not "work" you want people paid by but an abstract approximation. Who determines this abstract and why? But of course you want a free market, so in theory the people should decide through their purchases. That is unless of course corporations, using their newfound freedom, cut deals with one another to place their product in the forefront and another into relative obscurity. Not like that could ever happen, I mean if you exclude what Microsoft did with OEM's or Ma Bell's dominance through brute force. After all, aren't rules made to be broken? Who gets hurt when antitrust goes out the window, oh wait.

The simple truth is that the upper class has always used ignorance as a weapon against the lower class to keep them in line and if they aren't ignorant already, find ways to make them ignorant thus ensuring their continued power. We've seen no indication that the fiercest competitors in a free market do otherwise. One can argue against it all they like, but the history is stacked against them.

"Why shouldn't people who are better, smarter and harder working be rewarded to a greater extent? "

Let me ask the natural inverse of your question. Why should people who are less capable, not as educated, or less able to work penalized for what may or may not be an issue within their control? What of the families they have to support? Should we just say "well he wasn't born with quite the aptitude for book learning I was so he deserves to live paycheck to paycheck barely making ends meet"? Because really, that seems like what you are saying, that people who are born with lesser qualities deserve to suffer for it or are somehow less deserving of a full enjoyable life than those who are not. This really underscores why it is unwise to apply principles of natural selection to issues such as morality, society, economy, or politics. Nature is harsh and monsterous, we have no reason to be so ourselves.

Of course, I could be wrong, you may support a mixed system ensuring everyone has enough to meet their physical, intellectual, and artistic needs. But it does not appear that way.

I mentioned Kropotkin earlier because he considered mutal aid to be a trait we as an animal have evolved to ensure our survival. So instead of resorting to the "free market" which is in itself a form of economic eugenics, no market or a market of mutual aid should be developed and used.

"Human needs ARE considered, by the humans who have those needs. Labor organization has taken place and this is a perfect example. "

Unless, of course, you consider right to work states which tend to pay less, have lower quality working conditions, and fire a person they deem as expendable the moment they try to organize. If you wish to see the results of a free market look to the right to work states.

"You just stick your fingers in your ears and say "lalalalalala"."

Which is preferable to your sweeping the dirty bits of reality under the rug and proposing perfect world scenarios which do not exist. In a perfect world, the free market would work. But in a perfect world a frog would have wings so as not to bump its ass when it hopped.

"It isn't the state capitalism that damages Cuba or North Korea, it is the nepostic, despotic, evil regimes that are the problem... they come to power through socialist nonsense, where power MUST be consolidated. Some central authority must manage all resources and administration, funny these are always abused. "

Thinking that power MUST be consolidated or even exist is the problem all governments face, capitalist or socialist. Anarchy is to be preferred as government and capitalism boil down to the same thing. People trying to gain power over other people. Its class war and ought be abolished if we're to keep from taking out ourselves along with a sizeable chunk of the planets other life with us.